I was born in Poonch (Kashmir) and now I live in Norway. I oppose war and violence and am a firm believer in the peaceful co-existence of all nations and peoples. In my academic work I have tried to espouse the cause of the weak and the oppressed in a world dominated by power politics, misleading propaganda and violations of basic human rights. I also believe that all conscious members of society have a moral duty to stand for and further the cause of peace and human rights throughout the world.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Democratic rule or theocratic rule for the Muslim people

Nasir Khan, October 26, 2014

Islam is a religion, a great religion, but it is not a political
ideology for multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies
of the present times. It contains some golden principles such as
equality, fairness and justice that are applicable in politics because
such universal principles are recognised as the pillars of democracy and
open society. But that does not mean religion,
any religion for that matter, can be an alternative to democratic form
of government because this inevitably leads to the concentration of
power and influence in the hands of some potentates and despots. This
has been the case in the the Middle Ages where the Church dominated
states and it became a symbol of tyrannical rule and oppressive
practices. It is quite so in some Islamic countries where dynastic
despots and oligarchs rule by using Islam for their own ends and state
oppression.

It’s not difficult to see that different people have different
interpretations of Islam. Historically, there has never been any
unanimity of views in Islam on a range of issues. During the formative
period of the Islamic Caliphate after 632 C.E. differing and mutually
exclusive interpretation of Islamic state and Islamic rule had soon
started to take shape when the community split along the Sunni-Shia
lines. Such differences have multiplied over the course of fourteen
centuries. Even within the Sunnis different schools of thought emerged
and there is no way they can ever be reconciled. Nor, can the Sunni and
Shia concepts of what constitutes Islamic ruler be reconciled because of
the differing concepts that underlie Caliphate (Sunni) and Imamate
(Shia).

When some people dare to give their opinions, which do not repeat the
centuries-old stereotypes they are attacked for their heretical views
by the orthodox and rigid literalists of traditions. They assume only
they have the ‘true’ version of Islam; therefore, only they are the ones
who can rightfully speak on behalf of God and Islam while all the
others are groping in the darkness of ignorance and suffering from the
malaise of modern Western ideas of democracy and human rights. However,
it is essential to explain that democracy is a form of government in
which the will of the population of a country is decisive in forming
policies that advance the cause of the citizens in social, religious,
economic and political matters. In a genuine democracy this will
reflects the actual needs of the people but in a bogus democracy the
form of democracy is used to further individual or particular interests
while paying lip-service to the values of democracy.